[Phil J]

Interested to hear from the group how your respective companies assign IMO Project Leaders. Are they purely high-performers? Are they temporarily removed from “full time jobs”, or expected to do an IMO assignment part time? Many companies use IMO leadership as a stepping stone to grow in the organization. What other characteristics do your companies look for in IMO leaders?

[Max-Egon U.]

Hi Phil,

IMO Project Leaders are mostly well-established and respected employees of the company, who can rely on established trust, internal networks and a good understanding of the informal power structures and governance of the company overall.
In our case, Integration is a 100% assingment and there had been evidence that a parallel assignment can create negative impact. IMO leaders are often described as “calm”, “reliable”, as well as “engaging” personalities, who are able to convince and guide in matrix organizations and can create trust in the process, therefore allowing the individual contributors to focus on their expertise and work packages/work stream.

What do you think?

[Abigail]

In my experience, companies tend to select IMO project leaders based on a combination of demonstrated performance and the ability to lead through ambiguity. They are individuals who have shown they can manage complex, cross-functional initiatives while keeping teams aligned and moving forward under pressure.
One key trait is the ability to juggle multiple workstreams simultaneously. Another factor is familiarity with the organization. Leaders who understand the internal dynamics, key stakeholders, and existing processes can accelerate decision-making and build credibility quickly—especially when tough calls need to be made.
As for whether they take on the role full time or part time, it really depends on the size and complexity of the deal. For large integrations, it’s not uncommon to temporarily pull someone out of their day-to-day role so they can focus 100% on the integration. That said, I’ve also seen hybrid approaches work well when the integration timeline is longer or the scope is narrower.

[Keunyoung Kim]

Building on Phil’s question, I would like to add another perspective for consideration. The company has a well-established PMO structure, including a global/enterprise PMO, a US regional PMO, and a business group PMO. However, it does not have a dedicated IMO structure.
Given this setup, the company is evaluating the possibility of assigning a Program Manager from one of the existing PMOs to lead the integration of a small-sized company based in East Asia. A key challenge is that the company has not yet defined a clear business plan—whether the newly acquired business will be integrated into an existing business group or will operate independently as a standalone entity.
Which PMO group would be best suited to oversee the integration process under these circumstances? Or should the business plan be clearly defined first, with the designated business group PMO responsible for managing the integration?

[Milou van der Hoek]

I have seen successful Project Managers running a lot of the day to day. The challenge is to have a well-respected high-level executive alongside a practical enforces that has leverage with the rest of the executive team and can force action to the benefit of the post merger integration.

[John Sitler]

My company built its IMO prioritizing individuals with excellent project management skills and who are exceptionally well-organized. I sit on the deal / corporate development side of the fence, where I’d say there is more an emphasis on business acumen and an ability to navigate highly dynamic (or some might say chaotic) environments.

[Author]

Posts